Justice Evrol Mariette Peters ruled that the husband, a specialist doctor at a private hospital and anonymised as NAT, is only allowed to enter the home in Bukit Damansara between midday and 6pm every Saturday.
In July 2023, the wife, identified only as NAL, filed for an injunction under Section 103 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 to prevent her husband and a woman identified only as NIL, from molesting, harassing or threatening her.
She also wanted an order preventing her husband from bringing, authorising or allowing his agents to enter the Bukit Damansara home where she resides.
According to the facts of the case, the couple, now in their early 60s, were married in 1987.
They kept separate residences during their marriage due to the husband’s professional obligations.
When they separated, the wife occupied the Bukit Damansara residence, while the husband lived in another house in the city centre.
However, the husband kept coming to the Bukit Damansara home, which belongs to him, together with NIL.
The wife accuses the husband, named as the respondent in the divorce proceedings which are still outgoing, and NIL of having an extramarital affair.
She named NIL as co-respondent, accusing her of causing the breakdown of the couple’s marriage.
Peters noted in her judgment that the statute did not specifically define the term “molestation”.
However, she said, the word, by its ordinary English meaning and according to case law extends beyond mere physical violence or abuse to encompass a broad spectrum of behaviour.
“Recognising that both the act of molestation and the experience of being molested encompass elements of annoyance, disturbance and vexation, I found it imperative to grant the order in the current context,” she said in her grounds of judgment.
Peters said such a decision was rooted in the profoundly acrimonious relationship between the involved parties, accentuated by previous distressing encounters that had inflicted considerable emotional turmoil upon the wife.
The judge said the balance of convenience and the broader principles of justice favoured the wife because both parties stay in distinct residences, indicating an existing separation. Peters also noted that the husband has had the exclusive and quiet enjoyment of the city centre residence since 2017.
Addressing the contention by the husband’s counsel that allowing this application would be unjust given that a man’s home is his castle, Peters said it was essential to emphasise to the husband that the adage only holds true “until his queen arrives”.
The husband has appealed the decision.